I received an email from a family member entitled “A German’s View on Islam”. It’s a hoax email, but I didn’t know that until I did further research. If anyone is interested in the contents of the email that was sent to me, those contents can be found here:

I put a lot of thought into the response I emailed to my family members, however, and thought I should post my thoughts here because the topic and subsequent discussions still seem relevant.

This is a slightly edited version of the email response I sent to my family members:

I, too, was disappointed when I read this email. I wouldn’t say I was “shocked” because I’ve heard a lot of this before. The “no go zones” stirred up a lot of controversy when Bobby Jindal talked about them, and then defended his statements on CNN. At the risk of getting into an all-out war with everyone, I’d like to share my thoughts. Please remain civil. Attacking each other is not going to help anything.

I read this a few minutes after it was sent out, and had an immediate reaction, but I was watching the State of the Union address, so I thought I’d wait to respond. Then I thought it might be best not to respond, but since I see others have already done so, I will.

I was immediately intrigued by a sociological examination of current Muslim terrorism. (To be clear, I’m in no way saying all Muslims are terrorists or that we should “kill” Muslims–or terrorists. Extrajudicial killing, though usually done for practical purposes, adds to the problem.) My first thought was that the timeline must be off. An aristocrat pre-Nazi power? The fact that this person would still be alive and writing articles is not impossible, but surprising. I understood this man as saying he was a well-established businessman by the 1930s. I would think this would make him at least 100 years old today. I didn’t do the research Robin did, so I can’t tell you who Emmanuel Tanya [as it appeared in the email–his real name was Emanuel Tanay] is, or who this story/email originates from.

[I later did do the research.]

I have no reason to doubt the idea that many Germans rallied behind a renewed German nationalism or that much of the population didn’t follow as close attention to politics as it should have. My issue comes with comparison of Nazi Germany to not only today’s situation of global terrorism, but to situations unrelated to either in recent history. It’s very sexy to compare any situation to Nazism. Heads of majority Muslim countries that support terrorist organizations within their own borders (and without) are not Hitler, just as terrorist cells are not comparable to the early Nazi party. I think it does a tremendous disservice to all of the victims of extreme violence, tribal warfare, ethnic cleansing, and genocide to lump them all together. There are unique causes and conditions that occurred in Rwanda, the Balkans, China, Japan, etc. The barest of similarities can be made with the rise of Nazism and the subsequent genocide that occurred in Germany. Yes, ethnic and religious hatreds exist around the world, unfathomable acts of barbarism are practiced in an effort to gain and maintain power, and runaway ideology used as a justification for almost anything did not end in Germany in 1945. If we conflate every conflict, we misunderstand history and have even less chance of effectively mitigating the worst situations. It is pure ignorance to say ISIS or Al Qaeda or Boko Haram or any large terrorist organization of the moment is tantamount to the Nazi party. I’m not trying to diminish their threat or barbarism, but there are so many differences that I don’t think it’s a useful or proper comparison.

That those who scream the loudest or instill the most fear often get the most attention is not something I will dispute. Have terrorists overwhelmed the “silent majority”? I would say this is not true in every case, but yes, they pose significant threats to the very lives of those who live near (or more unfortunately, under) them. Ask anyone who has escaped from ISIS-controlled territory. The idea that those around them, the “moderate Muslims”, or, in this case, “peace-loving Muslims” should call out the poisonous apples in their ranks is an attractive one. Wouldn’t that be wonderful if everyone said “not in my name” to the point that their civil views drowned out the hatred and suicide bombings and maiming and beheading and stoning executed by the extremists? 1. Try doing this in a country where blogging your dissent can get you 1,000 lashes. (This happens in Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, that practices its own form of extremism.) The new head of “Charlie Hebdo” was asked how he felt about the cartoons of Mohammed drawn by his magazine staff not being shown in much of Western media. He said that he very much understood the threat posed by those living under authoritarian regimes and in places where free speech is hindered and “insulting the Prophet” can result in death. He did not encourage people to “stand up” in the face of such retribution. He did say, however, that he believed those who live in so-called “democratic” countries with stronger free speech protections were cowards for not showing the cartoons. I mention this because whatever your view on this, the point I’m making is that we tend to assume it’s just as easy for people around the world to openly “stand up for what is right”. It’s not. Perhaps the author is arguing that those who were silent let things get to this point. I’m not sure that’s entirely fair either. 2. It’s a nice idea, but will the terrorists just decide that violent jihad is no longer a good idea because most people wag their fingers at them? It’s a nice sentiment, but I doubt there’s significant merit to it. 3. Why should every member of a group be responsible for the actions of every other member of that group? Are we not all individuals? (“The Daily Show” made this point very well about 2 weeks ago.)

I’m not a proponent of any religion. I think passages from the Qu’ran as well as passages from the New and Old Testaments are despicable. There are extremists who will follow these tomes to the letter, including many Muslims. This is real and it is dangerous. I don’t have a solution that will address all of the root causes of the upswell in Muslim terrorism and extremism.

I do not agree that this email calls for the killing of all Muslims. I know there have been several instances of controversy regarding the Lord’s Prayer being shafted in favor of Muslim prayers at major institutions. I can’t speak to the validity of this claim. While I would like separation of church and state to actually exist, religious freedom should be extended to all. No group should be favored and allowed to practice if another is not.

The email mentions the dangers of labeling food as halal. Does anyone care if it’s labeled kosher? These labels mean nearly the same thing. (Muslims shopped at the Jewish market that was recently attacked in Paris!) I suppose this is an attempt to warn Western nations of the infiltration of their societies by especially motivated and mobilized outsiders. Instead of looking at this development as one toward greater unity and understanding, there are those who see it as a threat to their very existence. I do not condone any system that treats women and minorities as lesser, that puts religion above the safety and wellbeing of others, whether this is a perversion of the religion by some or not. Ooh, an imam supervised the baking of a chocolate bar. That’s really symbolic. Forget real terrorism. Now we should all be cowed.

In one of my very first blog posts, I talked about how I thought progressive groups have a branding problem. That feeling has only been strengthened with time.

In email after email that I receive from different progressive political groups, I’m assaulted with the same type of message: a call to action against “the right-wing nut jobs”, “the gun nuts”, “Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and the dangerous Tea Party”. Sometimes the writers get really creative, leading one to believe they spend hours sitting in front of their laptops or tablets, experimenting with extreme alliterations and potential apocalyptic scenarios. The whole “the world as we know it is about to end…if you don’t donate $3 or more by this CRITICAL fundraising deadline” schtick is so old that I barely open these emails anymore.

Progressive talking points generally seem to follow the same pattern. Maybe someone decided to dumb it down a bit, deciding that pithy slogans and fear mongering were easier and sexier than winning an argument based on sound policy. Why inform the people when you can take a shortcut?

Sure, hate and ignorance will cohere the torch-wielding mobs (temporarily), but there are multiple problems with this strategy. Perhaps the most worrying is that engaging in this kind of dialogue–and I use that term as loosely as possible–necessitates an arms race of vitriolic rhetoric. Nearly everyone complains about how divided the country is. Let’s just divide it more, shall we? “But they did it first! We have to fight back!” And so it goes…
Besides selling citizens short, this approach dilutes the argument and dissolves credibility. If the other side is so bad, what makes your side better? When spokespeople bury their legitimate points in screeds against others, it’s very difficult to separate out the noise.

Another thing progressives don’t seem to understand is that the conservatives they so loathe at least pretend to stand for something. Of course, being “the party of no”, voting against bringing even the barest of legislation to the congressional floor, shutting down the government, and bringing lawsuit upon lawsuit against nearly everyone and everything to promote their self-described “culture war” should stand on its own as abhorrent behavior. Obviously, many of these people are “against” much more than what they are “for”.

There is a caveat, however. Decisions like the Hobby Lobby decision handed down by the Supreme Court are cloaked in the nebulous, but always-appealing brand of “freedom”. Personal liberty, historic imagery, and inalienable rights are so ingrained in the psyches of Americans since kindergarten that these tropes are difficult to argue against. Sure, there are nuanced polemics about “whose freedom is really being protected” and true (but often long winded and depressing) anecdotes about how many groups faced and continue to face discrimination throughout American history. Most of us know that “the good old days” weren’t really that great and that all of American history has been a kind of gilded age fight for the furthering of freedom.

For a brief stint, progressives followed President Obama’s line in repeating the ethic of equality. This idea should be compelling, but like scissors cutting paper in Rock, Paper, Scissors, “equality” is often no match for the far stronger sentiments evoked by “freedom”. This paper-thin concept that we should live a more egalitarian life is not something most people care about. Besides being fraught with the historically anathema association to communism, equality is more of a communitarian idea. If someone else getting more means that I lose some, why should I give that up? People are not persuaded by the idea of less for themselves; they are stirred by the possibility of more for themselves.

What should really be put forward is something along the line of fairness. If progressives can argue for fairness for specific groups or, especially, tailor this idea to individuals, I think they would be more successful. Framing an argument is important. Just as people are grabbed by headlines, the thesis and tone of an argument are what will stick in people’s minds more effectively than slews of statistics. This is not to say that arguments–both written and spoken–should skimp on content. I am instead promoting the idea that a measured, but consistent approach be taken when presenting issues of concern.

The idea of paycheck fairness is difficult to argue against. The main argument I heard by those against passing concrete legislation that sought to make it more difficult to discriminate against women in the workplace was that it simply wasn’t happening. That is a negation of the premise, but not an outright rebuttal.

If hot button issues like climate change and immigration are proving difficult to advance on, try changing tactics. There are always going to be ideological differences and “bridging the divide” is much easier said than done. It only serves to exacerbate the wound when you either aren’t really trying or have lost the argument before you’ve even started.

The Hobby Lobby and Citizens United decisions aren’t fair to most people, plain and simple. Even if we accept the premise that the rights of a few (those in charge of companies) are being impeded, what about the millions of workers and millions of voters impacted by such decisions? What laws like this state is that those who have money and power are worth more than the vast majority who have less. If you own a company or you have lots of money and friends in high places, you are legally entitled to a greater say in the workings of what is supposed to be a democratic country. The rights of a few (whose rights I would contend are not really being infringed) bump up against the rights of the much less powerful many. This is a corporatocracy that caters to vested, ideological (and often very misinformed) beliefs that simply is not fair.

Show people why THEIR rights are being restricted. Be FOR something instead of solely against something. Live up to your name, progressives, and be truly progressive. Maybe then we’d have a slightly better shot at mobilizing people. People want to do what’s in their interest. I believe that people would rather get something for themselves than hurt others. As long as politics operate in a zero-sum fashion (which they don’t have to, but they tend to), make people want to win. That is almost always more persuasive than making the other side lose.

I meant to publish this a while ago, but didn’t. With the start of the Winter Olympics in Sochi, and the worldwide attention on Russia’s extreme anti-gay laws, this post seemed especially appropriate now. I’d also like to thank Tim Schleck for his contributions in the field of knowledge of Alan Turing and the time and effort he spent offering his opinions as I wrote the first draft of this post.

I’m going to write about two seemingly disparate topics. There is a direct link however, to how societies treat their most vulnerable and most vocal citizens. This is not true everywhere, at all times, but it’s pervasive enough that it warrants attention.

Recently, the pardon of Alan Turing made international headlines. On December 24, 2013, after 61 years, Queen Elizabeth II issued a royal pardon for Turing’s crime of homosexuality. This act of pardoning is seen as progressive in some circles because it dovetails with a movement of greater acceptance of homosexuality in the UK (including the recent national legalization of same sex marriage). Others, however, see it as a kind of window dressing.

Alan Turing was a brilliant and visionary pioneer who helped formalize the theoretical underpinnings of computer science. Two of his most well known accomplishments are that of the Turing Machine, a precursor to personal computers, and the Turing Test to measure artificial intelligence. (If you’ve ever seen “Bladerunner”, the test given to the replicants is similar.) The personal accomplishments of Turing’s short life are extensive and have played a critical role in the development of technology in the 20th and 21st centuries. By collaborating on the very first computer that was used to crack encrypted messages generated by the German Enigma machine, Turing played an invaluable part in aiding the UK and the allied powers to victory in World War II.

While the Queen’s gesture is certainly better than nothing, I would argue it’s too little, too late. An opinion writer at CNet seems to agree: http://m.cnet.com/news/alan-turing-gets-royal-pardon-on-homosexuality-crime/57616268 Turing was betrayed by the very government he so expertly aided in its most desperate hour. Government agents stalked and monitored his daily activities, resulting in the revocation of his security clearance, smear campaigns against him, and his eventual trial. He was charged with the then criminal act of homosexuality (called “gross indecency”) for admitting to having sex with a man, for which he was offered the “choice” of jail time or chemical castration. After choosing chemical castration, Turing’s suffering intensified. When he was found dead two years later after biting into a cyanide-laced apple, many people attribute his apparent suicide to his societal and governmental condemnation and subsequent punishment.

The pardon itself is sparse and offers no real apology. While former Prime Minister Gordon Brown issued an official apology in 2009, he only did so after bowing to the pressure of an intense internet campaign. Turing was a pivotal man in history, and although the standing of a citizen in society should not determine his or her treatment, it’s instructive when looking at other people who deviate from the norm of who offer value to their societies in a way that challenges convention. The most vocal may also be the most vulnerable, especially in strictly conservative countries.

The number of political prisoners in the world is unknown, but if the hundreds of thousands of documented Syrian prisoners and victims of torture and murder by Bashar al Assad’s government are any indication, holding individuals as political prisoners is not a rare phenomenon. Syria, while in the throes of a civil war, is no anomaly. These are all people who have been put in prisons because they challenged the government in some way. It may have been purely due to their very existence as members of a certain religious or social group seen as a threat that landed them in these hells. In countries such as North Korea, entire families are forced into oppressive labor camps where children are born into lives of captivity for no actual crimes. There are others who speak out against the actions of their governments, courageously trying to inspire more egalitarian and democratic laws in their home nations.

One such example is a Saudi Arabian man named Raif Badawi, who, due to his allegedly seditious activity–blogging about greater freedom in Saudi Arabia–has spent a year in prison, enduring physical and psychological torture. He is being charged with a crime akin to heresy: denying Islam. His punishment? 600 lashes and seven years in prison with another 3 months tacked on for disobeying his parents–an actual crime in Saudi Arabia. He has already been found guilty of various “cyber crimes”. If he’s found guilty of “apostasy”–the official name for the denial of Islam–he will be sentenced to death.

Yes, you read that right. If the 600 lashes themselves don’t kill him, he will then be executed. The idea of heresy in 2014, you ask? What is this, medieval Europe? No, it’s the present day Middle East. Of course, it’s not fair to take a monolithic view of an entire region, but any government that condones corporal punishment and capital punishment–especially for the supposed “crime” of expressing oneself–obviously does not have basic human values as its moral compass. Not beating and killing someone for writing a blog (however seemingly insulting) is not even a progressive stance. This is not an issue of cultural relativism or a so-called “Western value”.

What hope do we have for humanity if we turn a blind eye to such atrocities? These actions occur every day. Far from the exception, they are commonplace. The fact that people like this blogger know the risks of speaking out, and choose to do so anyway, stands as a testament to just how brave they truly are. It also presents a stark contrast with the agents who seek to silence them by the most cruel and permanent means available.
That United States officials have very little to say on the state of political prisoners (particularly those in countries with which the U.S. is a close ally or trade partner) is beyond shameful. It is detrimental to the reputation of the United States, and it gives the signal that countries can get a free pass. There are a plethora of ethical and strategic reasons why those in government positions outside of the offending countries should be doing more. Of course, the United States practices its own forms of cruelty. That doesn’t absolve Americans of the responsibility to do something more to help out fellow human beings anywhere in the world.

After the Olympics end three weeks from now, and the media buzz dies down, try to remember the dismal state of human rights in Russia. Remember how anachronistic the criminalization of Alan Turing’s homosexuality seems, how “gross indecency” was a prosecuted crime. Think about how he was only one of over 100,000 men in the UK to be punished for such a “crime”. Think about how that was over 60 years ago, but today, from Uganda (where you can be killed for being gay) to Saudi Arabia (where you can be killed for attempting to engage in free speech), human rights are not protected universally. We need to be aware, and learn from the horrors of the past. That this horrific backwardness still exists anywhere is unacceptable.

I have a pretty simple question. This is not meant to alienate anyone, but I’m curious about the answer. If you consider yourself a conservative, and claim government as the enemy, why would you want to be a part of the system?

I’m not quite sure when conservatism became synonymous with spending no money and dismantling government as we know it, but here we are. If you’d like to reform the system in such a way that it better serves people, to make it more efficient, I understand that. That does not, however, mean destroying the Environmental Protection Agency, privatizing all education, and taking a sledgehammer to unions. It doesn’t mean cutting food stamp programs by billions of dollars to starving children and families because Ayn Rand gave you the idea that you could pull yourself up by your bootstraps and, you know, ideologically, it just doesn’t sit well with you that there are people out there “getting handouts”.

Recently, I was attacked by someone as I know as being the kind of person who “loves government”, and who defends its practices. While this is a blanket statement–I don’t support everything the federal government of the United States does–yes, I tend to support government. Since when should that be an insult?

This is a word of warning to the anarchists and the so-called libertarians and all the others who fancy themselves modern day revolutionaries. We live in a country comprised of approximately 320 million people. Among those 320 million, there are varying states of education, income, opportunities, and health conditions. Even from state to state, living conditions vary widely. We live in a patchwork society of diverse demographics, from age to culture to ethnicity.

But more important than even our differences are our connections to one another. Even if you don’t believe in a kumbaya ideal or attach the words “communism” or “socialism” to anything that remotely resembles cooperation, you have to admit that we must interact with one another in society. We merge on the same roads. We go to schools and workplaces with others. We purchase goods and services on a daily basis. These are the basics.

And we all benefit from services provided by the government from traffic lights to mail delivery to public libraries. It was often cited in the direct aftermath of the recent government shutdown that the biggest winners were the National Parks. Even the most self reliant among us love our national parks. And who can resist nature? Thoreau did write about Walden Pond, after all.

Government–from the lowest levels to the highest–has a role to play. This role is a significant one. Whether we’re talking about “entitlement” programs or passing the very laws that enable us to live in a stable society, we need government.

Grover Norquist’s colorful imagery of shrinking government to the point that we can “drown it in the bathtub” is disgusting. I’d really like to see where all these people would be without government services.

You can’t say “hands off my guns” (and my taxes and my religion), and then decide that government overreach is non-existent when it comes to “pension reform” or controlling reproductive choices or shutting down marriage equality or denying atheists and secularists the same respect as religion (often mainstream Christianity) is afforded.

Is that the real aim: to remake society in one’s own image? To so fundamentally alter the landscape of the United States as to comport a self-styled combination of the Bible and the “good old days”? To decry diversity and change and progress? Perhaps the most effective way is to declare the evils of the monstrous government that swallows all of our money, that ever-growing Leviathan run by the evil corporatists and opportunists who work in a place worse than hell. This place–gasp–is called Washington, D.C., and it’s where dreams go to die. Worse yet, it’s where the government bogeymen are killing all of your dreams too.

…Except that many of the government haters work there too. From local governments to state houses, thousands of people who won elections on the idea that government is the root of all evil are reaping its benefits in the form of salaries, health care, jobs, contracts, success, relative levels of fame, and the furtherance of their agendas using the tool that’s supposed to be their kryptonite.

I’m a vegetarian. I hate the entire system that goes into the production of killing animals so that people can eat them. Do I continue to eat meat, and say how horrible the system is? No. If it’s so abhorrent to you, government haters, how can you be a part of it? Are you trying to change it from the inside, out? That begins with a respect for its very existence and the admission that you want to be a part of that system, at the very least. If principle is so important, at least be honest with the public and yourselves.

Susan Rice is being tapped as Obama’s new National Security Adviser to replace Tom Donilon. Undoubtedly, there will be uproar from Republicans at this after the much hyped-up (much ado about nothing) Secretary of State debacle of a few months ago. In case you forgot, many Republicans (both senators and media) personalities waged an all-out war against Susan Rice, the then-likely next Secretary of State, tarnishing her name after, as then US Ambassador to the UN, she reported what was later found out to be false information on the September 11, 2012 US embassy attack in Benghazi, Libya. Republicans vowed not to vote for her, bullying her into stepping out of the running. Voila! Now we have Secrekerry aka Secretary of State John Kerry, a person senators such as John McCain respect and feel comfortable with in the position–despite Kerry being a Democrat. The Susan Rice witch hunt can be viewed as a prelude to the Chuck Hagel–a person John McCain did not much respect or feel comfortable with in the position despite his being a Republican and co-chair of McCain’s 2000 Presidential campaign–witch hunt. (Crazy Republicans, tricks are for kids!) Somehow, miraculously, Chuck Hagel passed grueling confirmation hearings to become the current Secretary of Defense.

Anyway, getting back to the original story: the prospect of Susan Rice as National Security Adviser is bound to cause strife after the Susan-Rice-as-Secretary-of-State-debacle. I think this strategy to make her National Security Adviser is brilliant, however, from a political standpoint. If Republicans decide to wage unreasonable opposition yet again, Democrats–and the White House–can remind them of another Rice in the position of National Security Adviser. That Rice, Condoleezza, propagated tons of false and skewed intelligence information that led the United States into an almost 9 year war with Iraq. Oops. Thousands of US lives were lost and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead. But 4 dead Americans in Benghazi, you say! What about the 13 embassy bombings under Bush’s watch? What about all the innocent people who died due to a drawn out war that we KNOW was a mistake? We’re not supposed to talk about that.

Anyway, the post of National Security Adviser does not require Senate Confirmation. There may be a lot of bellyaching from Republicans, but they’ll have to suck it up. I take issue with Susan Rice for other reasons, but the way Republicans used her for target practice in their crazed spree/politicization of the Benghazi terror attack is more than unbecoming. It is shameful. Good for Obama. Good for Rice. Perhaps bad for the country in the short term as the media whips a non-story into the next (non) controversy with wall-to-wall coverage. It will be fun to see Fox News in a tizzy, though. You almost can’t blame many of these politicians and their talking heads–when your “policy” initiatives in the Congress include such recent actions as voting to repeal “Obamacare” for the 37th time and defunding the now 3 years-defunct ACORN, using taxpayer money to do so–you need flashy distractions. Without the illusion of the Great Oz, all you have is a scared, deceptive man behind a curtain.

Susan Rice will be the next National Security Adviser. The Republicans will whine and stamp their feet. They’d do better to focus on actual policy. Didn’t they learn the lesson of 2012? Had enough Americans responded to their childish tactics, and voted for Mitt Romney as president, they wouldn’t be in this position today.

Yesterday, the best hope for any real progress in protecting Americans from gun violence was shot down.

The Senate voted on an expansion of the background check system for those seeking to buy guns. It’s important to note that this bill was a watered-down version of previously proposed bills on the expansion of background checks. The bill called for background checks to be performed at gun shows and prior to Internet sales. Because the bill expressly exempted background checks from being required for sales from gun owners to relatives and friends, it fell far short of the “universal background check” threshold. The bill was expressly written in such a way both to alleviate fears of too much government incursion in private sales, and as an attempt to make it more palatable to senators who fear the lobbying and economic power of the NRA. It’s also important to note that the bill contained a very specific provision AGAINST the creation of a national gun registry. Because some paranoid people think that the US government actually wants to keep lists of these people in an effort to confiscate their guns, efforts were made to assuage even those most ardent opposers. To think the government a. has their shit together enough to accomplish such a mass undertaking, and b. has the time and money to do so, reveals a tremendous faith in our system. (These are some of the same people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. Which is it: powerful, Orwellian overreach, or staggering ineptitude? Make up your mind.)

I get it, though. There’s a fear that the government lies. Well, the NRA has demonstrably lied on a huge scale in order to push its pro-guns for everyone, everywhere agenda. The NRA is financed by gun manufacturers. Therefore, the NRA does the bidding of the gun manufacturers and represents their desires above those of actual NRA members. Of course gun manufacturers want as few restrictions as possible on gun sales. Gun sales are how they make their money. It’s not difficult to connect the dots. In fact, it’s a much easier connection than those reached by conspiracy theorists. Gun manufacturers have a vested interest in ginning up fear among the populace by distorting the facts, and telling people that “the government is going to take your guns away”, which translates into “Better get them while their hot–you never know when they’ll be gone for good!” This also leads to the idea that people need as much protection as possible against a “tyrannical” government comprised of SWAT teams and Special Forces soldiers who will kick down their doors in an effort to forcefully, physically “steal” their Cobstitutionally-protected firearms. Scary image, right? That’s why fear mongering is effective. And, in this case, it’s particularly potent because it preys on people who are already especially vulnerable to this type of delusional mindset. Never mind the fact that several Supreme Court cases as well as the Constitution itself is on the side of gun owners. These people who possess deadly weapons are defenseless against the Leviathan, didn’t you know? In their minds, their guns are the only things standing between them and such ridiculous and dangerous notions as state-run concentration camp style FEMA camps used to imprison citizens. What do you bet these people don’t even know that there are countries like Russia and North Korea who, right now, send political prisoners to ACTUAL work/slave camps?

Anyway, efforts were made to try to convince these people that their worst fears would never be realized. The government actually catered to THEM.

While the compromise bill was not as far-reaching as many would have liked, it was hailed as a historic and positive step. Its bipartisan nature was touted. It was drafted by Republican Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia, two conservative senators who represent areas densely populated by gun owners. It was often mentioned how credibility was gained by the fact that both senators had “A” ratings from the NRA.

In a myriad of polls, at least 90% of the American people supported expanded background checks. Some polls said 91%. More than 80% of Americans supported universal background checks.

Even NRA head and soulless shell of a person Wayne LaPierre called for universal background checks in a widely-circulated video showing him testifying before Congress in 1999 on behalf of the NRA and its powerful lobbyists.

It was thought that in the wake of the Sandy Hook School massacre and the accumulated horror of all the mass shootings and smaller scale, but ubiquitous, gun violence, that it was finally possible to attempt to make the country just a little safer. As both Biden and Obama have said, if the life of one child, one person, or a hundred, or a thousand, is saved by keeping guns out of the hands of more convicted felons, domestic abusers, and those with severe mental illnesses, don’t we have an obligation to try?

As the families and friends of those who died and suffered grievous injuries in shootings looked on from the Senate gallery (at the very senators they had summoned the strength to share their stories with in an effort to prevent others from going through the same unimaginable pain in the future), the Senate killed the bill. The vote was 54-46, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid joining the 46 and voting no once it became clear the bill wouldn’t pass in order to be able to bring it up for another vote in the future. Two of the women directly affected by gun violence shouted “shame on you” to those senators who voted no, from the Senate gallery. Former Representative Gabby Giffords, herself a famous example of gun violence, echoed this statement in an op-ed for “The New York Times” published today. As she explained how she has been robbed of the ability to speak easily since being shot in the head in Tucson in January 2011, she expressed being “furious” at the outcome of the vote. She is not only a former Congresswoman, a very visible victim of gun violence, and still, a gun owner, but she also co-founded Americans for Responsible Solutions, a PAC that aims to counter the incredible lobbying power of the NRA, with her former astronaut husband, Mark Kelly.

President Obama was very angry at a press conference he gave less than an hour after the Senate vote. He said that while “90 percent of Democrats voted for the bill, 90 percent of Republicans voted against it”. Obama explicitly called the NRA out on its lies to people.

The NRA erroneously claimed that a universal gun registry was to be created, and that it would be used to punish lawful gun owners. The NRA LIED ON PURPOSE–and, as Obama said, it worked. Unfortunately, enough of a “vocal minority” called their senators, and sufficiently scared them into voting against the bill. Members of Congress are so worried about being primaried in their next elections that they don’t represent the majority of people. As Obama resignedly asked, who are they representing?

Senior Senator from Connecticut Richard Blumenthal called yesterday the “saddest day of [his] public life”. He has been a tireless advocate for gun control legislation since the Sandy Hook massacre rocked his state in December. Yesterday was especially disappointing for millions of Americans, myself included. There are eight more gun control-related bills that are going to the Senate floor in the coming days. They are not expected to pass. As one resolute father of a six-year-old boy who was brutally murdered by gun violence at Sandy Hook Elementary School said, this is just the beginning. They knew it would be a long road, and they (all those related to victims of gun violence) aren’t going anywhere because they have no choice.

It’s difficult to be optimistic, but there are no other options but to give up. Progress often takes time. I’m hoping at least some of these senators are voted out next election cycle, and replaced by more progressive counterparts. Let them feel the power of votes firsthand.

Decrying incivility in government is about as uncommon as a politician wearing a flag pin. Everyone says there should be a return to civility, and many a politician has called for it at one point or another during his or her campaign. The truth is that common courtesy and a basic respect for those with whom one disagrees are too often viewed as quaint relics. These sentiments are often seen as losing strategies and can even be seen as traitorous since they might not do enough to galvanize one’s particular base. I maintain that calling the hate and bigotry on the right end of the political spectrum as bad as the vitriol spewed from the left a false equivalency, but there is plenty of blame to go around.

I’m not saying that everyone who subscribes to a certain political party or who promotes specific stances has an utter disregard for those with whom he or she disagrees. As is the case with most things, unfortunately, it’s those who scream the loudest, say the nastiest things, and occupy the greatest attention (due to the constant media spotlight), who become our icons and our political rock stars. Anyone who’s ever been in an elementary school class with those few kids whose bad behavior resulted in punishment for the whole class knows the drill. Perhaps it’s sociology: as voyeurs and voracious consumers of entertainment as well as the need to feel a sense of belonging or group identity in an increasingly alienated world, we seek out these atrocious displays of animosity. As people tear each other down, we cheer from the stands. Again, not everyone delights in this spectacle, and not all the time. Rome had its circuses, its great gladiatorial spectacles, but it also had its philosophers—and its statesmen.

It is these very statesmen (statespeople, really)—who take their positions seriously, and make the effort to solve problems and improve the human condition—who are often the ones ignored. Worse, they are punished for their willingness to compromise, to assess from all angles, to stray from the flock. Critical thinking is secondary to claiming and maintaining power, and this maintenance of power (as well as the attempts to attain it) is too often achieved by obliterating and dehumanizing the opposition. Those in Congress who buck the trend—the Dick Lugars, the Mike Castles—are swiftly replaced as their courtesy and reaches “across the aisle” mark them as liabilities. That a serious and accomplished presidential candidate such as Jon Huntsman was written off as soon as he announced his primary campaign is another testament to this climate. When urged to slam his opponents with acerbic insults, Huntsman calmly shook his head and chose substance over superficiality. The media soon got bored of his nuanced assessment of trade policy with China and his assertions that climate change is indeed real—and, gasp!, a result of human pollution and industry.

The primary system is also devised in such a way that skill or qualifications do not necessarily determine which candidate advances; rather, the one who can trip the rest of the competitors enough to come out ahead then faces his or her opponents, who have also, probably, clawed and bitten their way to the general election by emerging the most ideologically pure, the most willing to denigrate their primary opponents, and, are often the most monied people in their races. Since the two major parties are so dominant in the American system—from local politics all the way up to the national stage—polarization is unsurprisingly prevalent. The Tea Party has undoubtedly made Congressional polarization worse.

This all serves as a backdrop to the kind of thing that hits closer to home. As much as I would like everyone I encounter to be as politically engaged as I am, I realize that most people are not. Most people don’t know about the “Oh, snap!” moments that occur daily in the hallowed halls of Congress, conveniently couched between the decorous language of “My distinguished colleague from such and such state…”, and how these insults diminish debate and waste incredible amounts of time. Most people did not watch every Republican primary debate. Most people did not even know who Paul Ryan was before last Saturday. This level of ignorance is disheartening, but it’s not the subject of this blog post. The point is that most people will interact with others who employ the same lack of civility. They will also read what their idols write in magazines. They may very well incorporate these ideas into their everyday lives and begin to hate the “other”—the enemy—among them. This, unlike conservative monetary policy, has a measurable trickle down effect.

These are the people I want to focus on. The examples I provide are self-described progressives, proving that, unlike their limited conceptions that conservatives are the only purveyors of bigoted rhetoric, they, too, spread ignorance, disinformation and misinformation, and even incite violence toward those they malign.

Let’s start with Exhibit A. I’d like to begin with a woman on Twitter. This woman was trying to make a point about “rape culture” and the fact that consent can be revoked by a woman even in the middle of sex. Basically, even if the woman has said yes to the man, she can tell him to stop at any time (even while his penis is in her vagina), and if he doesn’t stop, the ensuing action is considered rape. No argument from me here. It was her subsequent tweets, however, which began to eclipse her initial point. Her description of rape, which went a bit further, was tweeted within the context of her assessment of the Julian Assange extradition case. I will not get into what may or may not have happened, and the fact that there are other political ramifications, whether Assange did or did not rape two women in Sweden. Whether you’re an ardent Assange supporter or not—or you fall somewhere in the middle—you would likely be totally turned off to this woman’s points about rape and domination of women after reading her Twitter feed.

I fancy myself a feminist, and I cringe when I see women malign the entire male gender and when they resort to ad hominem attacks and outright lies and generalizations about anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Another note: dressing provocatively does not make you a traitor to women or a slut, and cringing when a girl starts talking about “eating pussy” in mixed company does not make you homophobic. I can almost guarantee that if a male said the same thing, the female wouldn’t think twice about calling him disgusting and a chauvinist. Both of the previous examples have occurred in my life, and I stand by the fact that I do not hold back women everywhere by wearing what I want, and not wanting to hear about anyone eating anyone out, thank you very much.

Back to Twitter woman, though. This woman’s succinct and important point was drowned out by an hours-long screed against pretty much anyone who dared debate her. At a point, she decided she didn’t want to answer anyone anymore because she was bored and didn’t want to put the time in, and reasoned that she didn’t owe anyone anything. She wrote things about groups of people she’d never even met, and passed them off as truth. She had a point to make, and damn anyone who got in her way. Not only is this uncivil and immature; it drowns out the point you’re trying to make and upsets anyone who might’ve been stirred by your first point. The lesson: think for more than two seconds, and don’t be an asshole. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and one asshole turn does not deserve another—not if you actually want to accomplish anything in the way of progress.

One more side note: Inevitably, people claim freedom of speech. I don’t deny the validity of this claim. People are free to say and write nearly anything they want. My point is that a lot of these things are ultimately really bad for society. They contribute to the dumbing down of society and the squinty-eyed suspicion of anyone who is remotely different than you. Much is made of the wrongness of school-age bullying, but bullying occurs in all levels of society, and is actually encouraged in many arenas.

The next example I include is Tom Morello, the singer for Rage Against the Machine. He penned an op-ed piece in Rolling Stone in response to the revelation that newly-minted Vice Presidential candidate and fiscal and social conservative extraordinaire Paul Ryan has claimed Rage Against the Machine is his favorite band. The fact that Paul Ryan listens to Rage Against the Machine is not news to everyone, but Tom Morello is apparently just now hearing about it, and he’s not happy.

Ok, the fact that Paul Ryan listens to Rage Against the Machine is pretty paradoxical, and actually really funny. It’s the kind of tidbit that gives me hope for the world, the kind of quirk that puts a smile on my face and makes me think that despite our differences, maybe we really can find common ground and appreciate each other’s artistic, stylistic, or intellectual merits, even if we don’t agree with the ideology or the message behind them. For instance, some of my favorite bands are considered Christian rock bands, and just because sometimes they explicitly sing about Jesus doesn’t mean I don’t like them. They also haven’t succeeded in turning me Christian or religious or conservative. I know of other people who listen to Bad Religion, another one of my favorite bands, who, conversely, are not at all in line with their strong atheist and progressive political themes, but who still enjoy listening.

Anyway, Tom Morello writes about the fact that, obviously, Paul Ryan doesn’t get his band’s message. He claims that “Paul Ryan is the embodiment of the type of person our music rages against”. As if this isn’t enough, Morello goes on to say that Ryan must have a lot of pent up rage.

He writes: “Don’t mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta “rage” in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he’s not raging against is the privileged elite he’s groveling in front of for campaign contributions.”

Witty? Not so much. Morello’s trying to make a point, obviously. It’s lost here, though. Morello had an opportunity to spread a real message at a time when a lot of people were tuned in. His article went viral and was read by millions on Twitter within hours of his publishing it. If anything, he should probably thank Ryan for the free PR. The rest of the article’s tone is just as scathing and perhaps even pettier. When Morello calls Ryan an “extreme fringe right wing nut job”, he’s not doing himself any favors. The side he’d like to convince is turned off completely. Maybe he’s preaching to the choir, but he owes his audience more than that. He just sounds stupid and petulant.

Yes, Ryan does promote the view that abortions are not ok even if a woman is raped. His legislation does advance policies that directly hit the poor and the hungry and disproportionately affect minorities. Yes, he is in favor of deregulation and wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post in 2009, in which he declares that carbon monoxide is not a pollutant or a greenhouse gas. He would dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency. The list goes on. There is no shortage of extreme stances to choose from, and Morello would do more to call Ryan out on the specifics with which he disagrees. Instead, Morello comes across as an embarrassing caricature of “the angry, irrational leftist”, eschewing any class or tact. I agree with most of Morello’s basic views, and I end up not liking him based on what he wrote. He loses credibility in my book because I think, ew, how downright mean and nasty and unbecoming.

Incivility abounds. And, as I said, it trickles down. I knew people in college who were all for protesting what they saw as injustice, exploitation of labor, and institutionalized inequality. So far, so good. Their self-professed desire for anarchy was not very realistic, but freedom of assembly and political freedom are protected in the United States. Peaceful protest has helped bring about great change in American history. Several of the aforementioned people, however, advocated the use of Molotov cocktails in their protests, and even if they never had the opportunity to throw one themselves, gleefully cheered on those who did. I know people who hate other groups so much that they see a necessity in terrorism. It’s the whole “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” adage.

Yes, people are oppressed, but those “fighting for freedom” are killing people. Not only is this “by any means necessary” ethic morally wrong, but it undercuts efforts for real change. I guess people are desperate or they don’t think things through enough. You hate the US Chamber of Commerce, you hate Israel (I’m not even going to get into the fact that hating every citizen of a country is beyond reasoning), you hate those who disagree with you politically, and those who hold you back. Fine. You don’t riot and throw homemade bombs at people and shoot them and celebrate suicide bombers.

You don’t dehumanize your opposition to the point that these things seem ok. You don’t listen to those who do to the point that you become desensitized, that you justify horrific actions to yourself as understandable or necessary. These things are not ok.

I don’t like fear mongering, either. I’m not attempting to fear monger here, but yes, I am drawing a connection between incivility and alienation, between harsh words and harsh actions. Not only is progress almost certainly doomed, but everyone suffers—and sometimes the result of prolonged and festering incivility is irreparable damage.

Here’s a worrying admission: Syrian officials have admitted to possessing “weapons of mass destruction”, though they claim they would “never use them on civilians…no matter how the crisis evolves”. The weapons are reserved for “foreign” invaders. Comforting? Not really.

“Weapons of mass destruction” is a loaded term to begin with. While there are standard definitions for such weapons, has the Syrian government not already sanctioned the killing of its people on a “mass” scale? Maybe nearly 20,000 lives violently extinguished over a 16 and a half month period is not massive enough. I guess it all depends on how one defines the word “mass”, but semantics aside, it’s evident that tens of thousands of Syrians have died and many more have been injured by weapons, causing gut-wrenching destruction.

“WMD” or not, how is anyone–Syrian citizen or otherwise–supposed to trust Syrian authorities? Enough have proven themselves untrustworthy and unreliable at best and extraordinarily cruel and willing to do anything to hold onto power at worst. “Don’t worry. We would never release this Ricin or drop these Anthrax-tipped bombs. Your children will be safe.” Tell that to the people of Homs, whose city has been shelled relentlessly since the beginning of the “crisis”. Or tell that to the millions of residents of other areas of the country whose names appear in international news stories daily because of the constantly rising death toll.

The message is, then: We draw the line at using WMD on our citizens–or so we say–but conventional weapons are fine. Of course, this scene-stealing story might very well be a strategic attempt to ward off would-be interventionist nations. I’m not quite sure how that would work in the U.S. case since we all know the United States predicated its invasion of Iraq mainly on the premise of the existence of WMD there. However nuanced the international relations considerations were in this decision (which I’d say were not very nuanced at all), the fact remains: The United States invaded Iraq, a country believed to have WMD, that ended up not even having WMD. I think if anything seriously deters America from intervening in a humanitarian fashion in Syria, it won’t be the Syrian government’s claims of WMD. These claims might even serve as a motivator.

The Syrian government can’t be trusted. The world is supposed to take officials at their word when they claim they wouldn’t use weapons of mass destruction on their own people? I don’t buy it, and I don’t think informed Syrians do, either. Bashar al-Assad and members of his regime have continued to assert that Syria is under attack by “armed terrorist thugs”. They have claimed foreign influence against the country before. Why wouldn’t they attack these so-called enemies of the state? Even if they don’t really believe what they’re saying, the government’s rhetoric underscores the very reasoning for why it could seek to justify future WMD attacks on its own civilians.

The calculation that strong enough weapons can insulate a country from a kind of breeching its borders foreign intervention is an understandable one since the United States has limited its actions in certain countries with known nuclear weapons, although even this assertion is not always true. Drones in Pakistan, anyone? Obviously, China and North Korea have much larger militaries and there are regional considerations, etc. There are many variables. Iran is an interesting case. Regardless, when fewer than ten countries in the world have nuclear weapons, it is too small a sample to study in the case of the effect of interventionist policies on members of this exclusive club. And even then…Syria does not have nuclear weapons, the crown jewel of fear-inducing weapons caches.

All in all, the existence of WMD in Syria is worrying. The brazenness with which this information was announced is probably both a symbol of desperation and an attempt at showing strength, a last ditch defense mechanism. The danger of such weapons is very real and duly frightening, but it shouldn’t deter the international community (whose “wait and see” ethic hasn’t worked very well) from doing more. Far fewer people died in Libya than have already died in Syria. In a strange moment of outreach to the “West”, Qaddafi relinquished his country’s nuclear weapons program in 2005, but WMD were still found in 2011, when he was overthrown and the humanitarian intervention was undertaken. Again, comparing Syria to Libya brings up a host of other variables. My point is that WMD need not be a disqualifier from further international action in Syria.

Who is the real armed terrorist thug, Assad? If we are true to our ideals of defeating terrorism around the world–and this is not only state-sponsored terrorism, it is state-practiced terrorism—American government representatives would not turn the other way, issuing empty statements on how “Assad’s days are numbered”. This is the official U.S. State Department line, by the way. If we are committed to the rights of freedom and security for our fellow human beings, then Syria’s WMD tease should serve as a wake up call.

The recent dramatic escape of blind Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng has shone a light on the cruelty of the practices used to employ China’s infamous “One Child” policy, and the desperation and barbary a government with unchecked power can utilize in the face of an ever daunting problem such as population control. Chen Guangcheng puts a face on China’s human rights problem. The activist and self-taught lawyer was jailed for four years for publicly protesting the forced abortions and sterilization of women in his country. (Read about these practices here: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/30/world/asia/china-forced-abortions/index.html) He was then transferred to house arrest, where he remained for 19 months prior to his incredible escape to the American Embassy over 300 miles away. Over the course of his imprisonment under house arrest, he had decried the abuse he and his family suffered at the hands of guards. He recalled an instance in which guards broke into his house and held his wife inside of a comforter for hours while they mercilessly kicked and punched her before doing the same to him

Chinese officials are ashamed. They know how things like this look to the outside world, and they know how their restive population will react. This is why they censor. Widespread and immediate censorship was practiced in relation to Chen, especially after news of his escape spread on Weibo, the Chinese equivalent of Twitter. “Ashamed” might be the wrong word. They just don’t want a public relations disaster on their hands. They needn’t worry, though. United States officials have not significantly responded to any of this, and now, a week after Chen’s asylum-seeking mission to the U.S. Embassy, he has been surrendered (aka “brought of his own volition”) to a Beijing hospital, where Chinese officials have made no attempt to conceal the fact that they’re very angry with him and the attention he’s caused.

International Relations 101 is that the international system is anarchic. The actions of individuals within this system couldn’t be farther from the truth. Individuals, just as the nation-states they comprise, act in rational self interest within the system–to an extent. By its very nature, the system of nation-states that dot the earth necessitates cooperation. This is becoming more evident every day, as an increasingly globalized world proves that no country is a (proverbial) island–unless that country is North Korea, and it isn’t actually isolated; despite its constant claims of “juche”, the country is held up by the aforementioned human rights abuser, China.

I mention all of this because I see Earth’s population as a single entity: that of human society. International law, for all of its failings, exists for a reason. This is to exert order on an otherwise “anarchic”/chaotic world and to set standards for the behavior of members in the society. Apologists fearful of stepping on toes will employ the ethic of moral relativism, claiming cultural imperialism and the like, frightened of offending a subculture within world society, and therefore not reaping the individual benefits for their home country. Case in point: The United States’ unwillingness to intervene in a very obvious instance of a human rights abuse by China. Journalists reported that President Obama remained “tight lipped” on the issue of Chen Guangcheng’s detention, daring escape, and limbo-like existence as he took refuge in the American Embassy in Beijing. The American Embassy! Could there be a clearer appeal to aid from the United States?! Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a former advocate of Chen Guangcheng, remained silent on the issue, even as she arrived in Beijing for an economic summit with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. In fact, both parties–the U.S. and China–deliberately informed the world that the summit would not focus on Cheng, that the triviality of his plight should not get in the way of larger economic issues. You know, issues of global significance, unlike the issue of human rights. Read more here: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/02/world/asia/china-clinton-visit/index.html

President Obama offered up this single comment on the situation: “Every time we talk to China, the issue of human rights comes up”, he claimed. Does it? Perhaps. Or, perhaps, the idea that America owes China money (an issue which isn’t quite that simple and America could actually use to its advantage) has cowed America, and made it China’s bitch. Not very diplomatic? Looking the other way while a country tortures its people while the first country loves to proclaim its “shining beacon on a hill” status every chance it gets, is much less diplomatic. It is shameful, disturbing, but, perhaps, worst of all, it is unflinchingly hypocritical. Some countries–those with less strategic importance, perhaps–are punished, while China is given a gold star. Even if American representatives don’t approve of China’s treatment of its citizens (citizens of the world, fellow human beings), they issue their tacit approval by not speaking out on such matters. There are a select few people in positions of power whose voices carry a disproportionate amount of weight, yet they choose to remain silent because silence is easier and more convenient than standing up for human dignity when it counts.

What will Chen Guangcheng’s fate be? What does the future portend for the millions of women who have been forced to undergo painful, sometimes life-threatening abortions and forced sterilizations? What about the women and girls who daily exist as members of a society in which they are told they are unwanted, if they are lucky enough not to have been killed at birth or abandoned? A society of 1.35 billion people–females and males alike–is scarred by the destruction wrought by the Chinese Communist Party. A worry of the Party is the disproportionate number of boys to girls born in the country: 118 boys to 100 girls, the only country in the world with a significantly higher proportion of boys than girls. A telling statistic, but why does the Party mention it? It is worried about the “many unhappy bachelors” of China’s future. This type if statement is emblematic of the prevailing view in China of men as substantially more important than women. Some efforts have been made to curb violence and cruelty against women, particularly women carrying a second child or a female child, but these efforts are half-assed at best, and not uniformly enforced. This is why figures like Chen Guangcheng emerge. Courageous individuals attempt to protect their fellow human beings because the government–whose first duty is to protect its people–has failed them. Worse yet, it is the perpetrator of violence against its own. Other countries Iike the United States have a moral obligation to try to aid these suffering people, fellow citizens of our global society. The United States could certainly facilitate protection for Chen and his daughter, mother, and wife. US State Department officials reported that Chen did not seek asylum in the United States, but it has been widely reported that he was coerced into leaving the U.S. Embassy because his family’s life was threatened.

Articles on Chen’s coercion to leave the U.S. Embassy and the reaction of Chinese officials:

Instead of attempting to secure the safety of Chen Guangcheng and his family, and using this situation as a springboard from which to discuss the brutality of China’s One Child policy and its crackdown on dissidents, U.S. officials chose not to help. A single blind man has seen more than powerful sighted people who have averted their eyes.

A growing awareness of the earth began in the 1960s. The connection between astronomy/cosmology and environmentalism is a very clear one. When NASA’s Apollo astronauts took photos of the earth from space for the first time (including the iconic “Earthrise”, an image taken by Apollo 8 astronauts during the first human space flight to orbit the moon in 1968), a never before experienced sense of awe was felt by humans who could truly see the sheer beauty of their home for the first time. The environmental movement was born out of a convergence of factors, including mounting fears over nuclear weapons. The photos the astronauts took transcended borders, and impacted people in a way political arguments never could. It began in the United States, but in the decades since its inception has become a global phenomenon, celebrated in at least 144 countries worldwide. Many of these countries recognize the accompanying Earth Week, the week leading up to April 22.

“Earthise”, 1968

In honor of Earth Day, I’d like to draw attention to the importance of preservation by highlighting one of the most visceral and affecting descriptions of Earth I’ve seen. This description comes from the introduction to Carl Sagan’s 1994 book A Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space.

Credit: NASA / JPL

“Pale Blue Dot”, 1991

According to the Planetary Society, of which Carl Sagan was a co-founder:

“This excerpt from A Pale Blue Dot was inspired by an image taken, at Sagan’s suggestion, by Voyager 1 on February 14, 1990. As the spacecraft left our planetary neighborhood for the fringes of the solar system, engineers turned it around for one last look at its home planet. Voyager 1 was about 6.4 billion kilometers (4 billion miles) away, and approximately 32 degrees above the ecliptic plane, when it captured this portrait of our world. Caught in the center of scattered light rays (a result of taking the picture so close to the Sun), Earth appears as a tiny point of light, a crescent only 0.12 pixel in size.”

“We succeeded in taking that picture [from deep space], and, if you look at it, you see a dot. That’s here. That’s home. That’s us. On it, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever lived, lived out their lives. The aggregate of all our joys and sufferings, thousands of confident religions, ideologies and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lived there on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam.

The earth is a very small stage in a vast cosmic arena. Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that in glory and in triumph they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot. Think of the endless cruelties visited by the inhabitants of one corner of the dot on scarcely distinguishable inhabitants of some other corner of the dot. How frequent their misunderstandings, how eager they are to kill one another, how fervent their hatreds. Our posturings, our imagined self-importance, the delusion that we have some privileged position in the universe, are challenged by this point of pale light. Our planet is a lonely speck in the great enveloping cosmic dark. In our obscurity – in all this vastness – there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. It’s been said that astronomy is a humbling, and I might add, a character-building experience. To my mind, there is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. To me, it underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly and compassionately with one another and to preserve and cherish that pale blue dot, the only home we’ve ever known.”

-Carl Sagan

Earth, for all of its resilience, is a fragile ecosystem. Science is miraculous, and life on earth is the most improbable of possibilities. While the search for astrobiology continues in earnest–efforts not least of which have been made by Carl Sagan’s Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, or SETI—so far, our one planet is all we have and the only place in the universe that we know with certainty contains life. As Sagan said, the responsibility of stewardship of our home is “up to us” because “there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves”. Not only should we direct our efforts at treating out fellow human beings with “kindness” and “compassion”, but we should “preserve” and “cherish” Earth. This is the message of Earth Day, a message we celebrate every April, but one we should carry with us every day.